JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit
Gopal, Advocate for the applicants and the
learned A.G. A. for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) Notice to opposite party No. 2 was
served but no counter affidavit has been filed
and no counsel has put his appearance on
behalf of contesting opposite party.
(3.) Prayer in this application is for quashing
of the charge sheet annexure No. 2 and
the order dated 15-3-1999 passed by
A.C.J.M. Mahroni. Facts of the case is, mining
lease located at Pardhankuan in Pargana
Sanpur District Jhansi (now Lalitpur) Tehsil
Mahroni bearing cadestral survey No. 760
having an area 47.24 acres was sanctioned
to Ishwar Industries Ltd. for a period of 20
years with effect from 1-5-1964 for carrying
out mining work. Renewal of lease was applied
on 11-4-1983, which was rejected by
the State Government, order of rejection was
challenged before Delhi High Court and interim
order was passed in favour of leasee
on 8th August, 1988 by a Division Bench in
pursuant thereof the applicants are continuing
with the mining work. F.I.R. was lodged
against the applicants at case No. 140 of
1998 under Section 379 I.P.C., Section 26
Forest (Conservation Act) 1980 and Section
52/53 of the Mines Act 1952. Writ petition
No. 3862 of 1998 was filed in this Court for
quashing of FIR and stay of arrest of the
applicants, a Division Bench of this Court,
vide order dated 7-9-1998 granted time to
the State Government and the S.S.P. to file
counter affidavit and also stayed the arrest
of the applicants. Before passing interim
order, the Court had perused lease deed and
it was clearly stated in the order that the
petitioners (applicants) are permitted to use
the area for carrying out mining operation
and were permited to cut down the trees etc.
for which the applicants were entitled to pay
compensation specified by the Collector of
the District as per the terms of lease deed.
The said compensation will be treated as
an implied consent, copy of the interim order
has been annexed as annexure No. 4 to
the affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph
5 of the affidavit that State has not filed any
counter affidavit till date which is not disputed.
Charge sheet has been filed against
the applicants and the C.J.M. summoned
the applicants vide order dated 15-3-1999,
which is sought to be quashed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.